This article proposes an objective demarcation criterion for the empirical sciences, in contrast to the sociological concept currently dominant in institutional practice — based on consensus, peer review, and community authority. Although functional for academic regulation, this concept is insufficient for society, which funds research and expects reliable knowledge about the world. As an alternative, I develop a criterion anchored in two objective pillars: (a) the effective observation of the theory's constitutive presuppositions — whose absence relegates it to the legitimate antechamber of scientific speculation, but not to established science; and (b) the logical consistency of the interpretation — which admits no antechamber, since violations of logic invalidate the very formulation of hypotheses. Popperian falsifiability, predictive power, and comprehensiveness are repositioned as internal qualifiers — criteria for comparing theories already admitted as scientific — rather than as demarcation boundaries. I conclude with institutional implications for funding, teaching, and public communication of science.
Ricardo de la Flor (Fri,) studied this question.